9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - DTA Clearance - who is liable to pay duty i.e. purchaser of the goods or 100% EOU - binding precedence of earlier decision - Held that - in the appellants own case for subsequent period on the identical facts and issue 2008 (4) TMI 670 - CESTAT, Mumbai , this Tribunal has passed the order in favour of the appellants. Now the only question before us on today is that whether the order, passed by this Tribunal in appellants own case on identical facts and issues is binding on us or not? In the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. (2010 (10) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under - A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercise or judgement rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciates rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. We are bound to follow the precedent decision in these appeals - Accordingly, we find that both the issue in this case has been decided by this Tribunal earlier in appellants own case on similar facts and identical issues - Accordingly Central Excise duty need not be discharged by 100% EOU & entitled for the benefit of Notification 2/95. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Whether duty is payable by the purchaser of goods or the 100% EOU? 2. Whether the supply in DTA against payment in foreign exchange can be accounted as DTA sale and eligible for benefits of Notification 2/95-C.E.? Analysis: 1. The advocate for the appellant argued that previous tribunal decisions favored the appellant, making the duty payable by the purchaser, not the 100% EOU. The tribunal rejected a revenue application for reference to a larger bench due to the appellant's favorable previous decision. The advocate cited the decision of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI to support the contention. The High Court had not granted a stay against the previous tribunal's decision, making it applicable to the current case. 2. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the issue of supply in DTA against payment in foreign exchange was decided based on a Supreme Court case and not as a binding precedent. The DR also highlighted that the revenue had challenged the previous tribunal's decision in the High Court, which was admitted, thus not allowing reliance on the previous decision. The DR referenced the decision of UOI v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. to support the argument for a fresh hearing on the matter. 3. Upon hearing both sides, the tribunal examined whether the previous tribunal's decision in the appellant's case was binding. The tribunal rejected the DR's arguments, stating that the previous decision had not been challenged on certain aspects and had not been stayed by the High Court. Citing legal precedents, the tribunal emphasized the importance of following binding precedents for uniformity and certainty in the law. The tribunal concluded that the issues had been decided in the appellant's favor in the previous case and upheld the earlier decision, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. 4. The tribunal's decision was based on the principles of judicial discipline and following binding precedents to ensure consistency in legal interpretation. The tribunal found that the issues had already been decided in the appellant's favor in a previous case and upheld the earlier decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents for the administration of justice.
|
